On Monday, the Twin Cities was under a heat advisory. The
temperature reached 98 degrees but the humidity was only moderate, and the heat
index never reached advisory levels. And while it doesn’t figure in to the
formal mathematical calculation of heat index, a persistent, gusty southwest
wind made the heat more tolerable than it might otherwise have been.
In contrast, today’s high temperature reached 94 but the
humidity was more oppressive. Toss in light and variable winds and it’s fair to
say that most people would think today was more uncomfortable. The NWS did not
issue a heat advisory and the heat index technically touched advisory levels
(100). On June 27, a formal heat advisory was issued, yet the heat index never
reached 100.
With the benefit of hindsight, an advisory (technically)
should have been issued for Tuesday rather than Monday. And when you throw in
the ill-advised heat advisory on June 27, that’s three days where the issuance/nonissuance
of an advisory was wrong. To us, this merely points up the dubious nature of
the formality of heat advisories in the first place. Throw in the oddly worded “excessive
heat warning” and you’ve got even more confusion.
It’s simply very hot and uncomfortable weather! Nothing
more, nothing less. In our minds, the advisories and warnings that occur in
winter have far more relevance and significance to our daily lives. If the
windchill is a gazillion degrees below zero and you take a long walk without
being properly dressed, you’re going to suffer frostbite at a minimum and you
could potentially freeze to death. If heavy snow arrives, particularly during rush
hour, it’s going to mess with your commute and you might need to plan
accordingly. But if the heat index one day is 100 and another day is 98, is
that really much of a meaningful difference? And more importantly, is one day
more worthy of a heat advisory than the other? We think not.
If you're curious to see official definitions for advisories, warnings, watches and the like for the Twin Cities, click here.
